The positives are that the platform and flight crew have attained combat experience. The platform and crew have proven that they are a capable and effective combination. The support crew have attained valuable experience in maintaining the aircraft whilst deployed thousands of kilometres from home.

Whilst suggestions of restarting production in light of the above achievements were somewhat hasty in my opinion, the record is testament to those that researched, developed and produced, crewed and supported this aircraft.

Indeed. MONUSCO's mission and circumstances have changed, and the Rooivalk has provided four and a half years of good service in theatre. Nothing to really be upset about in my view. As you say, the SAAF attained valuable experience and the platform and SAAF doctrine were both proven in combat.

Incidentally, the UN has provided an official response:

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations conducted a thorough strategic review of MONUSCO last year to ensure that the Mission is adequately positioned and equipped to respond to the changing threats and challenges. Some of the recommendations of the review are addressed to the Force Intervention Brigade (FIB), of which South Africa and other SADC countries are key contributors. We are discussing with SADC countries as well as with all troop contributing countries, on how best to translate these important recommendations into concrete actions.

At the same time, following a review of the United Nations air assets initiated by the Secretary-General and aimed at improving efficiency and make savings in an increasingly constrained financial context of the Organization, it was determined that MONUSCO would need to give up its Rooivalk Helicopters. At this stage, it is considered that the Mission is in position to implement its mandate without additional attack helicopters.

...SANDF troops deployed without air cover (the Mi24s cannot fill the gap that will be left by Rooivalk)...seems like the lessons of CAR have already been forgotten.

It's a bit more complex than that. The SANDF hasn't forgotten the lessons of Bangui and is strongly opposed to the Rooivalk withdrawal, primarily because it does not want its troops to be without the air cover it provides, but neither it nor SADC are paying for the deployment. That means they can't dictate force designs and structures to the UN.

It's difficult to fault MONUSCO and the DPKO either though, as they are faced with a huge hole in their budget within which they have to deal with a deteriorating security situation and an expanded mandate, so they have to make tough choices. They've already cut troop numbers substantially, despite needing all the manpower they can get.

The real issue here is the sharp reduction in MONUSCO's budget, for which we can thank the Trump administration. They have made a reduction in the costs of peacekeeping a primary goal at the UN, even though they're not offering anything in the way of alternatives.

Seeing the US operate over all these years, I would not be surprised that the budget was cut with the prime intention to get Rooivalk withdrawn. They will definitely have information on how the rooivalk performed, and can probably see their Apache sales take a knock.

Trumpy, don't ask us to help you bomb a "terrorist" state any time soon, ok boytjie?

Trump is the president of the USA, not of RSA. He does not have to sponsor us, especially if we as a country do not support his country. If we do not come out in favour of US policies in the UN and the world at large, why should the US then support us? In any case, the Rooivalk is not a thread to the Apache in sales terms at all Trump is not there to please us. He is there to please his support base in the US. That is simple and he is doing precisely that.By the way, the US is by far the biggest contributor to the UN budget. It is time that those that sit in the UN with loud voices about international matters, increase their contributions to the UN to compensate for the US's new policies or stop wasteful expenditure where possible to compensate. If this can not be done then simply live with the consequences!At the end of it all, it is our leaders in SA, both political and military, that has to make the call. Either we finance it ourselves or we live with the consequences, or we withdraw. Simple as that.

Trump is the president of the USA, not of RSA. He does not have to sponsor us, especially if we as a country do not support his country. If we do not come out in favour of US policies in the UN and the world at large, why should the US then support us? In any case, the Rooivalk is not a thread to the Apache in sales terms at all Trump is not there to please us. He is there to please his support base in the US. That is simple and he is doing precisely that.By the way, the US is by far the biggest contributor to the UN budget. It is time that those that sit in the UN with loud voices about international matters, increase their contributions to the UN to compensate for the US's new policies or stop wasteful expenditure where possible to compensate. If this can not be done then simply live with the consequences!At the end of it all, it is our leaders in SA, both political and military, that has to make the call. Either we finance it ourselves or we live with the consequences, or we withdraw. Simple as that.

With all respect, this is not how international relations works in the real world. Either Trump accepts the current international system is a USA construct and funds it accordingly, or disowns it and accept the consequences ala Woodrow Wilson.

The USA - for better or worse - has inherited the mantle from all of mankind's empires, and the responsibility that goes with it. I happen to believe they're better than Egypt, Greece, Rome or UK for the modern world. The DRC defenestration is but a small cut in the thousand cuts that prove that Chinese mercantilism is the world's future or not.